Gonna take a moment to talk about something kind of squicky to some people, and that's female anatomy. Specifically a hymen, which is a somewhat petaled, arch-like tissue that lines the external opening of the vagina. Most people world over believes that this is something virgins have and non-virgins don't. The problem is...
that is completely incorrect. To a huge extent!
Notice that it 'partly encloses'. There is a disorder that causes the hymen to be more like the barrier most people think of the hymen as, and it has to be surgically removed to allow for menstrual flow. But that is a rare exception.
There even is a study which shows that 52% of the studied individuals, the hymen was still smooth and completely intact in teens which were sexually active. (link) That's because in most cases the hymen doesn't cover enough of the vagina to interrupt penetration. And even if it does, hymens can heal if the damage isn't too great. Further, damage to the hymen can be done by other perfectly normal activities like doing the splits, taking an ugly fall, riding horseback and so on.
This means one very important thing: There is no such thing as reasonable or accurate virginity testing for women.
This doesn't sound like it's a revolutionary concept, but it is. For goodness sake, even dictionaries sometimes gets this fundamental fact wrong: "noun, Anatomy.
1.
a fold of mucous membrane partly closing the external orifice of the vagina in a virgin." (Dictionary.com Bold emphasis mine. Thankfully Miriam Webster omits that little bit).
The problem is a lot of cultures still desire women to be a virgin at the time of their betrothal (including ours.) Some even still preform virginity tests where bleeding after sex and the finger inspections of the hymen are used to determine whether or not the woman is still a virgin. Even though it's false standard.
The bible is no exception to this ancient practice. In Deuteronomy 22:13-21 it says:"If any man takes a wife, and goes in to her, and detests her, and charges her with shameful conduct, and brings a bad name on her, and says, 'I took this woman, and when I came to her I found she was not a virgin,' then the father and mother of the young woman shall take and bring out the evidence of the young woman's virginity to the elders of the city at the gate. And the young woman's father shall say to the elders, 'I gave my daughter to this man as wife, and he detests her. 'Now he has charged her with shameful conduct, saying, "I found your daughter was not a virgin," and yet these are the evidences of my daughter's virginity.' And they shall spread the cloth before the elders of the city. Then the elders of that city shall take that man and punish him; and they shall fine him one hundred shekels of silver and give them to the father of the young woman, because he has brought a bad name on a virgin of Israel. And she shall be his wife; he cannot divorce her all his days. But if the thing is true, and evidences of virginity are not found for the young woman, then they shall bring out the young woman to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her to death with stones, because she has done a disgraceful thing in Israel, to play the harlot in her father's house. So you shall put away the evil from among you"
As I hope you all understand by now, this is totally bull****.This woman's life relies on a completely inaccurate test. How many women do you suppose were stoned after their virginity was called into doubt because some completely unrelated activity tore the hymen? Or because the hymen was simply not broken during sex?
Or how many women were saved, not because they didn't commit adultery, but because their hymens healed and tore again?
Christians are quick to point out that this scripture is part of the old covenant and not enforceable by Christians today. Fewer doubt, however, that the old covenant was indeed handed down by God to the ancient Israelites. But my question to you is...why in the world would God give this instruction in the first place? I'm assuming he would have known this bit of female anatomy trivia already. So why make a completely bonkers test that could easily end with an innocent woman getting killed? The only thing that makes sense to me is this wasn't written by a divinely inspired author, but was a hold out of the cultural misconceptions that have endured in some places even to this day.
that is completely incorrect. To a huge extent!
Notice that it 'partly encloses'. There is a disorder that causes the hymen to be more like the barrier most people think of the hymen as, and it has to be surgically removed to allow for menstrual flow. But that is a rare exception.
There even is a study which shows that 52% of the studied individuals, the hymen was still smooth and completely intact in teens which were sexually active. (link) That's because in most cases the hymen doesn't cover enough of the vagina to interrupt penetration. And even if it does, hymens can heal if the damage isn't too great. Further, damage to the hymen can be done by other perfectly normal activities like doing the splits, taking an ugly fall, riding horseback and so on.
This means one very important thing: There is no such thing as reasonable or accurate virginity testing for women.
This doesn't sound like it's a revolutionary concept, but it is. For goodness sake, even dictionaries sometimes gets this fundamental fact wrong: "noun, Anatomy.
1.
a fold of mucous membrane partly closing the external orifice of the vagina in a virgin." (Dictionary.com Bold emphasis mine. Thankfully Miriam Webster omits that little bit).
The problem is a lot of cultures still desire women to be a virgin at the time of their betrothal (including ours.) Some even still preform virginity tests where bleeding after sex and the finger inspections of the hymen are used to determine whether or not the woman is still a virgin. Even though it's false standard.
The bible is no exception to this ancient practice. In Deuteronomy 22:13-21 it says:"If any man takes a wife, and goes in to her, and detests her, and charges her with shameful conduct, and brings a bad name on her, and says, 'I took this woman, and when I came to her I found she was not a virgin,' then the father and mother of the young woman shall take and bring out the evidence of the young woman's virginity to the elders of the city at the gate. And the young woman's father shall say to the elders, 'I gave my daughter to this man as wife, and he detests her. 'Now he has charged her with shameful conduct, saying, "I found your daughter was not a virgin," and yet these are the evidences of my daughter's virginity.' And they shall spread the cloth before the elders of the city. Then the elders of that city shall take that man and punish him; and they shall fine him one hundred shekels of silver and give them to the father of the young woman, because he has brought a bad name on a virgin of Israel. And she shall be his wife; he cannot divorce her all his days. But if the thing is true, and evidences of virginity are not found for the young woman, then they shall bring out the young woman to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her to death with stones, because she has done a disgraceful thing in Israel, to play the harlot in her father's house. So you shall put away the evil from among you"
As I hope you all understand by now, this is totally bull****.This woman's life relies on a completely inaccurate test. How many women do you suppose were stoned after their virginity was called into doubt because some completely unrelated activity tore the hymen? Or because the hymen was simply not broken during sex?
Or how many women were saved, not because they didn't commit adultery, but because their hymens healed and tore again?
Christians are quick to point out that this scripture is part of the old covenant and not enforceable by Christians today. Fewer doubt, however, that the old covenant was indeed handed down by God to the ancient Israelites. But my question to you is...why in the world would God give this instruction in the first place? I'm assuming he would have known this bit of female anatomy trivia already. So why make a completely bonkers test that could easily end with an innocent woman getting killed? The only thing that makes sense to me is this wasn't written by a divinely inspired author, but was a hold out of the cultural misconceptions that have endured in some places even to this day.
